Vegetius and the pre-Marian army

[Susanne]

My apologies if this already has been discussed.

Anyways, there is a sentence of particular interest in Vegetius' De Re Militari (book 1).

Those who fought in the first line of their respective legions were called principes, in the second hastati, and in third triarii.

This doesn't make sense to me. According to many other sources (including Polybius), the hastati made up the first line (in front of which were the velites), and the principes were positioned in the second line. How should we interpret this piece of information?

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

It is clear... Vegetius describe the antesignani corps in the late roman times. The principes is the name to speak to the ordinari officers (first cohors) and the elite soldier who fight in first line (Acia, not the ordines...) There are a lot of proof in late roman author and latin text (IVe-Ve century)

No reference to the marius army or any republican army here.

a plus...

[Praefectusclassis]

But do they use hastati and triarii in the late army as well? If not, then it sounds to me like Veg. read these terms somewhere and put them in the logical order, principes first, triarii last and so the hastati end up in the middle.

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

Yes, in Docletian times, there are gravestones to triarius optio (Aurelius Gaius for exemple...) The triari are assimilate to the "normal" subsidia; the three acia. the Only thing to understand is maybe the come back to the républican military locutions or simply the non disparition of the ancient terms in late roman times. Most significative, the Hastatus terms is reccurent in late author. The famous Maurus, Draconarius Hastatus who give his torque to emperor Julian (Ammianus Marcellinus) Principes and velites appears a lot of numbers in late latin text. If you analysis the Vegetius battle order (2 versions) we never have the republican pattern. The roman army describe by Vegetus text (antiqua consuetudo...) is not the républican army but the late IIIe and IVe century army in ideal version: the strongest infantry corp in opposition to the Theodosius (or Gratian times: helmet and cuirass reform...) light infantry increasing at this times (Zosimus), Verify in the post Theodosius times, conclusion to the Andrinople desaster. The E.R.M is not only a military and tactical treatise, it is so a politics and a tentative of heavy infantrymen restauration.

Vegetius say himself, the cavalry don't need to a reform. She is most efficient today.

The citation to the ancient author "Veleius Paterculus", "Frontinus" ect... is the link with the roman glorius History but we don't seen here a chronoligical terminus. The Vegetius system is most near to the Ammianus system... rather than the republican and early empire system. Idem with the military referénce in latin panégyrics. Zosime is another problem most turn around the VIe century early byzantine times.

[Mitra]

Hi Susanne

The problem is the use by Vegetius , of republican (Cato ) with imperial sources. The author must mixed elements of republican legion with imperial legion.

If you read XV.6 "Prima acies principum , secunda hastatorum armis talibus docetur instructa". Caesar call principes the first lines of fighters of legion (Tapsus).

We have so the imperial duplex acies (5 and 5 cohorts) mixed with the republican triplex acies and late roman elements

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

We must understand that the triplex acies or duplex acies and others battle order (septem depugnationum) is not write in time! There are a normal continuity beetween the Caesar times to the Théodosius times. War is the roman art and it is normal to quoting the litteray classics. All late tall battle process to this system. For exemple Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander the great are the late roman models from the cultural paideia...

Yes, Caton primary sources to Vegetius is a old Historian topoi. The modern Historian are not agree with this consideration. Me too... Caton write a disapear treatise How to know where he appears in the Vegetius text with most efficience rather than the others autors (Caton l'ancien, Celse, augustean and antonine constitutions, Stratagemata Frontin Tarrentius Paternus...) It not a mixed republican-imperial view... it is a idéal late roman system. Vegetius quote the Littary and Historic legacy. The comprehension stay an late roman point of view write to the late roman emperors and generals. Don't forget.

I'm sorry, the triplex acies (no duplex in Vegetius...) is not the republican battle orders. They are an phalnagical system, not a manipular system...

[Kate Gilliver]

I'm sorry, the triplex acies (no duplex in Vegetius...) is not the republican battle orders. They are an phalnagical system, not a manipular system...

hock: the triplex acies, along with the duplex and occasionally simplex and quadruplex were all employed during the Republican period. And I thought Veg. in 2.15 recommended the duplex acies of 2 lines of 5 cohorts for legionary deployment in battle; but all my Veg. texts are in work and my memory gets worse as I get older!
In the early Republic the Roman army probably deployed as a phalanx but at some point before the wars with Carthage was employing the manipular system described by Polybius in VI 20ff. Keppie (Making of the Roman Army) attributes it to the 4th century BC. Between the Macedonian wars in the 2nd century BC and Caesar's campaigns in Gaul, the manipular system gives way to an organization based on cohorts which is the army of the early Roman empire.
Walbank in his commentary on Polybius discusses P's explanation of hastati, principes and triarii and points out that "the names suggest that the principes were originally the front-line fighters, and bore some weapon distinct from the hasta, from which the hastati took their name. At some date now unknown the pilum was adopted by both principes and hastati, and the latter were brought forward into the front line."
My view is that Vegetius is drawing on Republican & early imperial sources & is confused (or his sources are confused or unclear).

Suzanne, if you're interested in the Republican army, you'd probably be better off avoiding Vegetius as a possible source; if you're interested in Vegetius, talk to Mike Bishop!

[Mitra]

We must understand that the triplex acies or duplex acies and others battle order (septem depugnationum) is not write in time! There are a normal continuity beetween the Caesar times to the Théodosius times. War is the roman art and it is normal to quoting the litteray classics. All late tall battle process to this system. For exemple Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander the great are the late roman models from the cultural paideia

This is sure but we discuss of a terminology employed from the author. The text is a ideal late roman system , it is a Vegetius creation with republican-imperial model and late roman elements.

A 6100 soldiers ,10 cohorts , legion come from references to late republican-principate period ; this is clear , for Vegetius , the ideal for late roman army is the organic composition of the old legions. Two lines of 5 cohorts (phalanx or not not has importance) aren't equal to two roman lines of Strasburg (from the single legion point of view) .

It is possible Cato don't have importance in this passage of Vegetius , but the author is used for acknowledgement of the same Vegetius.

The references to principes , hastati and triarii don't implied a ideal manipular legion but a terminology taken from repubblican source , the same term ferentarii go back to Salluste adn republican time. The paragraph on triarii and centurions is a clear reference to republican triarii role ("matters have come down to the triarii" of Livian memory) not late or first roman imperial period. Is possible Vegetius want to suggest a third reserve line for late roman ideal legion of 10 cohorts , two lines , making use of examples of the past for to give force to the idea.

[Paulus Claudius Damianus]

Kate Gulliver say:

the triplex acies, along with the duplex and occasionally simplex and quadruplex were all employed during the Republican period. And I thought Veg. in 2.15 recommended the duplex acies of 2 lines of 5 cohorts for legionary deployment in battle

In Liber II chapter VI, XV, XVI, XVII, Liber III chapter XVI, there are always three lines of gravis armaturae. Don't forget, the triari are the factual late roman subsidia. The rôle is identical. Triplex acies is the common pattern. Duplex or additional Acia are specific circumstances... and i repeat this again in Tétrarchic times we have the triari in late roman army...

Mitra say:

"The text is a ideal late roman system , it is a Vegetius creation with republican-imperial model and late roman elements."

Absolutly no! The 6100 forces soldiers are not incompatible with the lydus listing and the création of élit legio by Dioclétian (6000 soldiers in Aurelius victor and Vegetius) in fact we don't forget that the numbers given by modern Historian are largely hypothetical and late legio can be to an optimal 6000 men number (the palatini for example...)

Phalangical system is extremly inportant to understand that the republican system is really far to the Vegetius model. Titus Livius (8.8) describe point by point the manipular legio. If we read the Vegetius and Livian texts the difference are strong. The Vegetius army don't fight like the livian army...Idem to the polybius weapons illustration ( liber VI, Chapter VI, 19-26)

Again we find in late latin text the Principes, Hastati and Triari/Subsidia normaly like identifical military corps less constant republican terms sources. The Ferentarii appears in panegyrics text why most Sallustius rather than Nazarius? Additi appears in anonymous "Histoire Auguste" with the seem fonction that vegetius...

My personnal point of view is that the late roman army si very misunderstanding today. Parasited by modern and old topoi...

[/quote]

[Mitra]

John the Lydian numbers under Diocletian reflect +- a army of 34 (5500) principate's legions + praetorians + auxiliary ; it is with probability the teoretical numbers of units of roman army in the 285 coming from the 235 ( - losse + new prediocletian creations) . Probably the army double in the period between the 285 and the 324 , if for John, Costantine double the army after the conquest of oriental territories.

It is possible the creation of new legions of 6000 men (for the new Diocletian legions) but much other units are of other types (auxilia, cunei,vexillationes) and 1000 men legions have major probability , with successive gradual fragmentation of old legions during the IV century . The numbers of army don't change much after Costantine , but the number of units grown.

From Treadgold calculation on notitia dignitatum units with 1000 men's legion , an 500 men for other units in imperial east we have 303000 men ,if we think to the same number for the west (the west list is incomplete and with losses) + marines and sailor we have the numbers of Agathias. If the 23 palatine legions have 6000 men , we have 110000 men extra. Treadgold calculations are confirmed from the teoretical numbers of regional fields armies reported from Procopius on Justinian time.

création of élit legio by Dioclétian (6000 soldiers in Aurelius victor and Vegetius)

Vegetius speak of promotions of Iovians and Herculians from illyrians legions status not new creation.

we find in late latin text the Principes, Hastati and Triari/Subsidia normaly like identifical military corps less constant republican terms sources

the references (author, chapter, paragraph) ? Where the subsidia are associated to triarii?

Phalangical system is extremly inportant to understand that the republican system is really far to the Vegetius model

Is irrilevant on the terminology ; the model is a 10 cohorts legion on two lines , with a triarii corps in third ; the function of triarii is described with the same concept used from Livy of last resource (and with the same "genu positu" ) ; this is a conceptual idea of Vegetius from the past not a real corp. The use of chess formation or phalanx formation dont change this.

The Ferentarii appears in panegyrics text why most Sallustius rather than Nazarius

Because Sallustius is a Vegetius source.

[perrygray]

Using Vegetius is complicated by his idealizing view of the past. He intended his work to serve as a guide for his contemporaries so that current practices could be reformed in light of the practices of the republic and early empire (hence the appearance of such archaic terms as principes, hastati and triarii).

Vegetius includes Cato, Celsus, Frontinus and Paternus, who wrote in the late Republic and early empire, as sources but does not acknowledge writers contemporary to his own era. Moreover, Vegetius was not a soldier, so it is advisable to be wary of his handling of technical terms.

It is not clear from what era Vegetius drew his model legion. He may have been referring to the legion prior to Diocletian so he did not discuss Republican structure. The changes made in the 4th Century attributed to Diocletian and Constantine have been much debated, although it is still not clear what was intended. Diocletian tended to preserve the status quo so may not have decreased the size of the legions on paper.